WMC Update 2012

Damn there's an awful lot of people here assuming their recreational choices on public lands are more important than others.

Aaron - I can assure that Scottie isn't tired of "working for his turns" lot's of others will confirm this.

Thanks Yammadog: You

"get it."

PNWbrit, I don't know if it's because you and Scotsman are Crystal locals or that you are from the UK, you don't "get it". You are largely insulated from the situation on the east side of the crest. Yammadog may be an exception, but the vast majority of sledders I encounter seem nice enough but still have a wanton disregard for the safety of others and don't really understand how to share the forest and will destroy vegetation and disturb the soil in pursuit of good snow. This goes against any reasonable code of responsible use of public lands. I have and will continue to use snow mobiles for access to remote skiing in a responsible manner, but cannot condone unrestricted off route travel. Most motorized users are not responsible enough to do it in a safe and discrete manner. OHV and motorcycle use could be done responsibly off trail but users can't resist the urge to roost, mudbog and hill climb, would you condone those practices too? You don't need to assure me about Scotsman's willingness to earn his turns, his posts have made his intent clear. The skiers that are involved with WMC are out touring most every day in the areas affected by the proposal and have a better grasp on the situation than you. The areas in the proposed restriction are relatively small and there are large tract of land for unrestricted snow machine access. Maybe you don't understand because you usually ski in an area with little to no sled traffic.

Exactly what would "being from the UK" have to do with it?

How long would I have had to have been "from the UK" for it not to have anything to do with it?

If I still disagreed with you after this period what then?

WMC - I'm sympathetic to your cause (despite, like Scotsman, pondering getting a sled myself). I understand the emotion behind a sledder who says that anyone who wants to create such set-asides is selfish and not willing to share, but like you and Cookie Monster, I've seen how the average snowmobiler's "sharing with skiers" works out in practice. It is not sharing in any practical sense of the term, given that, as you've well noted, such "sharing" renders the terrain practically unsable for the skier. Arguments to the effect of "well then skiers should offer to have some areas designated as not allowing them" also strike me as a bit silly given the asymmetrical nature of the situation. I've yet to see a snowmobiler's fun hindered by a skier any more so than it would be by another snowmobiler who was occupying the same space as the skier, and yes, I have spent a moderate amount of time in areas travelled by both user groups. If I'm missing some aspect of skiers hindering snowmobilers (aside from on questions of access policy  ), I'm eager to be educated.

However, I'm unwilling to simply shoot off a letter w/o having a bit more understanding of the restrictions being proposed - e.g. I really don't want to sign on to a stealth attempt to keep sledders from all practical routes for reaching the alpine and having their highmark fun in places where it is unlikely to cause damage to underlying vegetation. I see the verbal description in your original post - perhaps I'm just being dense, but it seems to me that it would be far more precise if rendered as a map. Does such a reference map exist?

As for ten year studies and so forth - I think that if, as Scotty notes, the BC ski community is nowhere near as organized as the sledders, or as some imply above that WMC has it wrong on the relative populations of the user groups, the political process will be an adequate proxy for such a careful analysis of relative sizes of the user groups, and if Scotty is right he has zero to worry about here.

Like I posted, I don't know, maybe it's a different mindset on the responsible use of public lands. The attitude seems to be "I want to do whatever I want on my lands and I don't care about how it affects other users". If user groups can't cooperate then there should be areas where each can recreate without encountering the other. To say that skiers can have the wilderness and we(sledders) will take everything else is unrealistic and doesn't address local use issues. Skiers didn't create the wilderness areas  and have the same right to be on public lands as other users. Unfortunately in some areas motorized users have increased traffic to the extent that non-motorized users are virtually excluded from using that area. Imagine wanting to go for a quiet family xc outing and having nowhere to escape from the din of snow machines and the cloud of exhaust they leave in their wake. I'm not talking about forays onto designated travel routes but off trail in open forest and meadows. There currently exists only one area around here that has official non-motorized status, that is the Tronsen Meadows area north off the Chelan/Kittittas county line in the Blewett pass area. That's a relatively small basin that has regular incursions by snow mobiles. There are other voluntary non-motorized areas, but they are just that, voluntary. These areas are routinely used by sledders, because officially they are not off limits. What would you think if the basins around Crystal were tracked out, no continuous skiable lines, by sleds at 1000 in the morning every day after a storm? That's the situation over here at Mission. This proposal would only restrict a very small percentage of the forest in the Wenatchee Mountains. The area available for sledders over here is vast, most of the Wenatchee , Entiat and Chelan Mountains east from the wilderness boundaries to the Columbia river, literally hundreds of thousands of acres.

What would you think if the basins around Crystal were tracked out, no continuous skiable lines, by sleds at 1000 in the morning every day after a storm? That's the situation over here at Mission.

The basins east of Crystal Mountain (over the crest) are within the Norse Peak Wilderness. But Morse Creek, southeast of the ski area, is non-wilderness. There's nothing preventing snowmobiles from using it except the tradition (dating back to the 1930s) of use by backcountry skiers. This tradition is so strong that I'm not too worried about Morse Creek becoming motorized. But what if it did? Who here would support motorized use of Morse Creek? It's not in a designated wilderness, so why shouldn't snowmobiles have at it?  :-[